Mormon Scholarship

[IndigoChild5559]

Not at all. Multiple people can indeed by unified as one.

Yes, but not "absolute" unity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In more than one place, the Father and son are separate. One is where he is Baptized and comes out of the water. G_d says, "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased". I am often unsure of the role of the Holy Spirit because there seems to be no physical body, but often I have the sense of being spoken to or instructed, usually in the morning just as I am wakening. Most people just try to explain that away but I am not seeking an explanation. It just is.

Remember that things don't have to have bodies in order to exist. Love exists without a body, as does justice and truth. The entire world of mathematics exists without substance.

 

[Katzpur]

There is no "absolute" unity between Father, Son, and HS in the LDS. If there were, the Father and Son would be the same person.

I thought I made it clear in an earlier post that their "absolute" unity is in their will and purpose, and not in their physical form. You're right, though, that if they were physically perfectly and absolutely unified, they'd all be the same "person," which they aren't. But even traditional Christianity refers to them as separate "persons," so that makes traditional Christianity as henotheistic as Mormonism, according to your reasoning.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I thought I made it clear in an earlier post that their "absolute" unity is in their will and purpose, and not in their physical form. You're right, though, that if they were physically perfectly and absolutely unified, they'd all be the same "person," which they aren't. But even traditional Christianity refers to them as separate "persons," so that makes traditional Christianity as henotheistic as Mormonism, according to your reasoning.

"Absolute" has to mean ABSOLUTE. If you redefine it to mean something less than absolute, then it is worthless. When *I* say absolute, I actually mean ABSOLUTE, and being united only in will and purpose is not absolute unity.

 

[Katzpur]

"Absolute" has to mean ABSOLUTE. If you redefine it to mean something less than absolute, then it is worthless. When *I* say absolute, I actually mean ABSOLUTE, and being united only in will and purpose is not absolute unity.

Well then, traditional Christianity is not monotheistic either, then, because they it does acknowledge the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be three persons, not one person. You know, at this point, I really don't care what words you want to use to describe LDS doctrine on the nature of God. All that really matters to me is that people understand what it is we believe before judging those beliefs. I just want them to be informed, and that's really all I care to accomplish in my posts. I think I've explained our beliefs well enough so that anyone who want to actually try to understand them will be able to.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well then, traditional Christianity is not monotheistic either,

You are absolutely correct!!!!! Orthodox Christianity is a muddied monotheism, indeed many Jews would say it is not monotheism at all.

There are those Jews who say Christianity is outright avodah zarah, which translates strange worship and refers to idolatry.

But others of us hold to the opinion that it is Shi*tuf (I have to add the * or it spells a nasty word and gets edited). Shi*tuf translates association, but is actually used to label any worship of God that is not purely monotheistic, especially Christianity.

The term was used to explain why Jews could do business with Christians even though Christians were Trinitarian, that is, not purely monotheistic. Jews are forbidden to do business with pagans on their holy days or for three days before or after. Sunday is a holy day for Christians, and given that it is once a week, if Christians were classified as pagans, Jews couldn't do business with them ever. Was it Maimonides???? I forget who made the ruling, but it was said that just as they weren't purely monotheistic, nor were they pagan. Rather, they had a kind of impure monotheism. The one true God was associated with someone else. "Shi*tuf." Therefore business was allowed.

Thank you for the opportunity to, well, probably just stand here talking to myself. LOL I bet no one else is interested in this sort of stuff but me.

 

[Watchmen]

"Absolute" has to mean ABSOLUTE. If you redefine it to mean something less than absolute, then it is worthless. When *I* say absolute, I actually mean ABSOLUTE, and being united only in will and purpose is not absolute unity.

The Scots under William Wallace were “absolute” in their resolve to defeat England. That doesn’t make them the same person.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Scots under William Wallace were “absolute” in their resolve to defeat England. That doesn’t make them the same person.

That’s because you are talking about absolute resolve, not absolute unity.

 

[Watchmen]

That’s because you are talking about absolute resolve, not absolute unity.

What’s the difference? Why does “unity” have to be physical? The Scots were absolutely united to defeat the English.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What’s the difference? Why does “unity” have to be physical? The Scots were absolutely united to defeat the English.

Get out a dictionary and compare the differences between “resolve “ and “unity.”

 

[Watchmen]

Get out a dictionary and compare the differences between “resolve “ and “unity.”

Ok. I checked the dictionary. Doesn’t say “unity” must be physical.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok. I checked the dictionary. Doesn’t say “unity” must be physical.

I’ll say it again. There is a difference between unity and absolute unity. If there is absolute unity then the two things or people really aren’t two but one single being

 

[Watchmen]

I’ll say it again. There is a difference between unity and absolute unity. If there is absolute unity then the two things or people really aren’t two but one single being

I am absolutely unified with others in our disagreement with your view.

 

[Katzpur]

I’ll say it again. There is a difference between unity and absolute unity. If there is absolute unity then the two things or people really aren’t two but one single being

"Absolute unity" cannot exist at all if there is only one person or entity, so why even keep using the phrase? There has to be more than one thing if there is absolute unity between the two of them. So, you either acknowledge one of two things: either the words "absolute unity" is a completely meaningless term else "absolute unity" can refer to a unity of something other than the physical.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am absolutely unified with others in our disagreement with your view.

The is a unity on a p articular issue, and so you would not call it an absolute unity. It is not an absolute unity of persons.

Again, need to stick to the issue at hand, which is the LDS claim that the FATHER has an absolute unity with the SON. They don't. If they had an absolute unity, they would be the same person. I.e. in Modalism the Father has an absolute unity with the Son.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Absolute unity" cannot exist at all if there is only one person or entity, so why even keep using the phrase? There has to be more than one thing if there is absolute unity between the two of them. So, you either acknowledge one of two things: either the words "absolute unity" is a completely meaningless term else "absolute unity" can refer to a unity of something other than the physical.

I used as an example Modalism, where the Father and Son have absolute unity.

 

[Watchmen]

The is a unity on a p articular issue, and so you would not call it an absolute unity. It is not an absolute unity of persons.

Again, need to stick to the issue at hand, which is the LDS claim that the FATHER has an absolute unity with the SON. They don't. If they had an absolute unity, they would be the same person. I.e. in Modalism the Father has an absolute unity with the Son.

Absolute unity of purpose.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Absolute unity of purpose.

Unity of purpose.

 

[Watchmen]

Unity of purpose.

Absolute unity of purpose.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Absolute unity of purpose.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence.

This whole conversation is above me.